MICHAEL W. MOORE, SECRETARY, STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, PETITIONER,
v.
JERMAINE MILLS, RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Florida appellate court quashed a trial court order prohibiting the Department of Corrections from cutting an inmate's hair or beard for religious reasons, holding that trial courts lack authority to regulate prison conditions.
Trial courts lack authority to regulate the treatment and conditions of sentenced inmates in the prison system, including grooming policies.
[1] Trial courts lack jurisdiction to regulate conditions of confinement and grooming policies for sentenced inmates in the prison system.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJermaine Mills sought a trial court order prohibiting the Department of Corrections from shaving or cutting his hair or beard due to religious reasons…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Conditions Of Confinement cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner, Michael W. Moore, Secretary, State of Florida Department of Corrections (DOC), seeks certiorari review of a trial court order which prohibits the DOC from shaving or cutting respondent Jermaine Mills’ hair or beard due to religious reasons. Because the trial court is without jurisdiction and lacks the authority to regulate the treatment of prison inmates, we grant the DOC’s petition for writ of certiorari and quash the trial court’s order. Mills argues that the DOC, a non-party, should have moved to intervene in the trial court prior to seeking certiorari review, and the assistant state attorney failed to object to the trial court’s authority to issue an order prohibiting the cutting of Mills’ ham and beard.
However, it is well settled that trial courts lack the authority in criminal actions to regulate the treatment of sentenced defendants in the prison system. See Moore v. Lowery, 758 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); Singletary v. Duggins, 724 So. 2d 1234 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Moore v. Habibullah, 739 So. 2d 1281 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). The cutting of hair and beards are clearly conditions which the DOC set for inmate confinements, and to interfere with those conditions exceeds judicial authority.
Petition granted.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Moore v. Burns, 796 So. 2d 1261 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)…i and quash the trial court’s order. Time after time after time, this Court has made it clear that trial judges lack the authority to regulate the treatment of prison inmates; particularly as it relates to inmates’ hair length. See Moore v. Mills, 789 So. 2d 1159 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001); Moore v. Lowery, 758 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); Moore v. Habibullah, 739 So. 2d 1281 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Singletary v. Duggins, 724 So. 2d 1234 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). In Moore v. Mills, this Court unequivocally stated that “[t…
Authorities Cited
- Singletary v. Lancy Duggins, 724 So. 2d 1234 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)
- Greene v. State, 739 So. 2d 1281 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)
- Moore v. Lowery, 758 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)